Defensive Carry banner

When to pull and when not to pull

4K views 31 replies 22 participants last post by  Blackeagle 
#1 ·
I took my ccw class and the instructor said if you can't get away to pull to defend yourself, even if they do not have a weapon because he has heard of people getting killed just from people using bare hands
so just wondering if he was right or wrong.
What is your opinion?
 
#2 ·
First - welcome!!

The often quoted fair decision-making factor is - are you in fear of your life.

This does not need a firearm to be present - it could be a knife, Louisville Slugger, even a bag of potatoes but - if the threat is perceived as serious (and you'd have to justify that in court) ........ then you could feasably draw your sidearm.

But - note well - in most cases if you got that far - you'd also better be prepared to use it. It presupposes too in many states you had little remaining option for retreat.

It is fortunate however that in many cases a presentation can defuze things enough to save the day but - if that occurs with no shots fired .... be sure also to call in the incident and explain ... you are the good guy - and want to make sure some scumbag doesn't try and make you out to be the aggressor.
 
#3 ·
There was a case here in Texas recently where a CHL shot and killed another man on a bus. It started with the CHL bumping the guy as he was heading for his seat. The guy got upset following the CHL as he retreated toward the back of the bus. The guy did not have a weapon of any kind. The CHL pulled a knife but that didn't deter the guy. Then the CHL pulled his gun and shot him. The guy was much bigger than the CHL although about 10 years older, they were both under 35. The CHL go no billed by a grand jury with several witnesses saying that his life was in danger and he was defending himself. Also it turned out the guy had been convicted previously of several assaults including one on a LEO. So it was a good shooting even though the BG had no weapon other than his hands.
 
#5 ·
I took my ccw class and the instructor said if you can't get away to pull to defend yourself,even if they do not have a weapon because he has heard of people getting killed just from peolple using bare hands so just wondering if he was right or wrong. What is your opinion?
Depends on the situation. You can use deadly force to defend yourself anytime you face imminent severe bodily injury or death. It does not require the BG to have a weapon, but you must have a reasonable basis for believing that the assailant could do you severe bodily harm without one. So it's going to be easier to make the case if it's a 300lb biker saying, "I'm gonna rip your arms off," that if it's a 90lb old lady.
 
#6 ·
To me the gun is the last resort.

If I can retreat I will. If I can defuse the situation I will. Perhaps a simple, "I'm sorry sir, I didn't mean to bump into you. Please don't HURT me." I don't have anything to prove so I my ego won't be bruised.

Although this may not be exactly sound advice....I was told by a man that I considered to be wise in the way of the gun and self defense that if you are going to draw then you damn well be ready to use it.

What I question about the advice from your CCW instructor is what if the BG wants to go H2H and is in close. You risk getting your weapon taken from you and used against you unless you can put distance between you and him. My only less than lethal option right now comes in the form of a Surefire 6P to the head. Hopefully though, Akkido or other MA classes will be in the future as part of the overall Doc Holliday self defense game plan.

In this situation pepper spray would be ideal but most of us are already overloaded with gear. I always have at least one gun plus a spare mag or two. Sometimes I carry a BUG. I always carry a Surefire. Add car keys, wallet, cellphone, chapstick, sunglasses, etc. and I am starting to feel like I need an ALICE pack for everything. I guess I could look at spray to hang on the car keys but that seems like it could be very awkward to deploy quickly.

So to rant on, just my .02.
 
#12 · (Edited)
rob69... Welcome to the forum and I hope you stay and participate in this forum. There is a lot you can learn here. This site is full of serious people talking about a serious topic and we welcome any new people who are serious about the responsibility of carrying a concealed weapon for protection.

I believe the standard is that you have be placed in Immediate and Otherwise Unavoidable Fear/Danger of Death or Grave Bodily (Crippling) Injury.

That also has to pass the "reasonable person" standard of would another person placed in the same situation reasonably believe the same fear of death or grave bodily injury. It is important to know that the threat must be Immediate and Otherwise Unavoidable.

Just saying you were "In fear for your life" against a person half your size armed with a wiffle ball bat probably won't cut it. You'd be spending a long time behind bars if you tried to make that float. However, if the person has a water bottle and states it's full of sulfuric acid... You might be justified in using deadly force if he was in a position to squirt you with it.

Three essential components go into being able to claim the above.

1) The attacker must possess or have the Ability to kill or cripple you.

2) The attacker must have the Opportunity to be able to kill or cripple you.

3) You must be in Jeopardy, in such as the attacker has behaved in a way or made clear that he intends to kill or cripple you.

Ability, Opportunity & Jeopardy are the three components that must all be present at the same time in order for you to reasonably be in fear of your life and thus are justified in using lethal force to defend yourself.

What you must do as a responsible CCW holder is to seek out the knowledge and information that makes up what Ability means, what Opportunity means, and exactly comprises Jeopardy.

There are many factors and situations that plays into all that like disparity of force, force in numbers, what constitutes a deadly weapon and a plethora of other nuances in the law that comprise deadly force justification. There are definitely times when shooting an unarmed man is justified. Shooting a person in the back can be explained satisfactorily depending on the dynamics of what was happening at the time.

All this should be a topic and subject that a person who carries a gun should spend a significant amount of time studying and understanding.

In the end, it is YOU that are responsible for the actions you take in the use of deadly force you unleash to repel an attack. If you don't think all this stuff is important to know and study then you are playing roulette with your livelihood, your freedom, and all you hold dear and valuable.

You can learn a lot here at this forum and I hope you stay and become involved with us here. There are NO STUPID questions regarding this subject matter.

Strapping on a gun and walking among the masses is as serious as serious can be and should be taken with a commesurate amount of maturity and responsibility. Any bad acts performed by one of us reflects badly on the rest of us and places our right to carry in jeopardy.
 
#13 ·
Interesting Thread

Our actions and our reactions should never be carved into stone.
There is a conscious thought process involved all the way up to the very instant of discharge.
Human beings can process information incredibly quickly.
I don't believe that drawing a firearm puts the defensive shooter on mandatory auto-pilot to end life to the exclusion of all other options such as standing down. It is a razor fine line.
I'll enjoy getting into this some more but, right now have got to get to bed before the birds start singing their morning songs.
 
#14 ·
I think that clearly, people are killed every day by someone who didn't have a gun or knife or club. Bare-hand killings happen.

But the general ignorant public has been conditioned to believe that using a weapon to defend against an unarmed attacker is not justified. These are often the same people who say, "Just shoot him in the leg, you don't have to kill him!" :rolleyes:

Unless you have a guarantee that someone absolutely could not kill you without aid of a weapon -- and how could you ever have a guarantee of that? -- circumstance may well justify your using a weapon on someone who is "unarmed." I feel for the guy who has to defend such action in court, even though I may be fully supportive of his decision. It's an uphill battle for him.
 
#15 ·
This thread, once again, emphasizes the awesome responsibility we undertake when we elect to carry a gun. It is one thing to state the legal requirements in the comfort of our home as we sit at our computer, it is quite another when we are faced with having to make a split second decision whether we can legally use deadly force, ie, do we have a reasonable belief that our life is threatened or that we will sustain serious physical injury.

And then we can wind up having to defend our use of deadly force in a criminal and/or civil proceeding seeking damages, with a jury using hindsight to decide if we reacted correctly. To make it even worse, unless the "Castle Doctrine" applies, we will have the legal burden of proof.

So, it is very wise advice to do everything possible to avoid having to draw your gun. I try real hard to leave my ego at home when I venture out. The consequences of not doing so, are just too onerous.

Ron
 
#19 ·
This thread, once again, emphasizes the awesome responsibility we undertake when we elect to carry a gun. It is one thing to state the legal requirements in the comfort of our home as we sit at our computer, it is quite another when we are faced with having to make a split second decision whether we can legally use deadly force, ie, do we have a reasonable belief that our life is threatened or that we will sustain serious physical injury...

...I try real hard to leave my ego at home when I venture out. The consequences of not doing so, are just too onerous.

Ron


Ron, I agree whole heartedly with your post. When things happen in real life, they happen in the blink of an eye and then someone is dead or dying. The numbers say that most gunfights are over in less than 5 seconds. Not a whole lot of time to think and react.

My opinion is the more time you spend learning the intricacies of deadly force situations and knowing the laws and requirements surrounding judicious use of lethal force and all it encompasses is what allows you to make those split second decisions that may save your life.

Deadly force scenarios are fast and fluid by their very nature. Circumstances can and do change from the time you decide to go for your gun, clear leather and come up on target.

Knowing the legal parameters of what is justified to the point of being subconscious and second nature is what may allow you to hold your shot once you decided to draw if the situation has changed since the time you decided to draw and come on target.

Taking someones life is a serious thing regardless of the circumstances. Having to go to prison because of the decision you made is not a proposition I would want to face.

That is why most, if not all "lethal force" trainers stress avoidance to be your best course of action. I agree!

Having a high level of situational awareness, and following the "Rule of 3 Stupids" hopefully allows us to avoid being in a killing situation to begin with.

(The Rule of 3 Stupids)
1) Avoid Stupid People
2) Do Not Perform Stupid Acts
3) Stay Out of Places of Stupidity
 
#16 ·
Read lots of scenarios here. Go through lots of "mental training" (ie: fantasy scenarios). Take more classes if you can. Hopefully, anything your faced with will relate to something you've already thought of. It might help you make the decision faster. Gotta play it all as you see it.
 
#18 ·
I'm no lawyer but self defense is based on that you beleived at the time you defended yourself you were in fear for life or of great bodily harm. No weapon need be present and no real threat for that matter just the believe. Threats can be real or preceived both are valid threats.
We all have preceived a threat without an actual threat appearing thats why we carry.
That said lethal force should not be used to keep you from getting a black eye and bruises.
 
#21 ·
You are pretty much correct... Just remember that your fear of death or great bodily harm must be "Reasonable".

Like I said in my earlier post... Facing a person 1/2 your size wielding a plastic wiffle ball bat probably won't pass the "reasonable" aspect of being in fear of your life.

You may want to try that out... but I sure wouldn't want to be the test case on that defense.

Mas Ayoob offers a good analogy... We don't just pull out our licensed CCW gun and shoot every police officer on sight.

While he certainly has the ability to kill us (He has a loaded gun on his hip) and certainly the opportunity to kill us, (firearms can reach out and touch you from great distances) but the missing component there is the lack of being in jeopardy.

All three components have to be present simultaneously in order for your fear to be considered reasonable and thus your use of lethal force justified.
 
#22 ·
At my age, 74, I consider that. Even though at 16 I was a Golden Gloves contender I am very weak and slow and uncoordinated now when compared to that time. I still think I could throw a punch if the BG was a small person and wide open. But I would draw my gun on the BG and probabliy fire if he kept coming or attacking. Remember the 20 foot rule that they might in that short distance stab or hit you before you can draw and fire unless you are quick and determined. Toe to toe fighting depends on your ability and confidence. Don't bet on the weakness of your opponent you will usually lose.
 
#23 ·
Now please don't think I am being arrogant when I say dying isn't an option...It just that I EXPECT to win in a life or death struggle. When the SHTF I don't want any doubt in my mind.

It is the same way with a great athlete. They expect to win whenever they cross that white line onto the playing field. I do know in the real world the good guys don't always win but when the time comes I expect to win.[/QUOTE]

As my H2H instructor told me in BUD/S, training, practice, and expectation of winning is important in H2H. But the most important ingredient is motivation. The most motivated to win, wins. There are willing to do what ever it takes to win. I have found that he is correct.
Every H2H situation I have been in I've won, but have found myself having to step up my motivation in the midst of battle. I'll be damned if I was going to lose. The desire to stay alive and protect your family can be highly motivating.
 
#24 · (Edited)
Stormtruck... You are absolutely correct.

You can't display a violence of action and expect to win if your heart isn't into it!

When I was a boot, there was a little scuffle in the squad bay. Two MP's responded with loaded .45's. After the scuffle and both participants were carted off in handcuffs never to be seen again (we were told they were fined, placed in CCP "corrective custody platoon" while they were processed for discharge), our Sr. Drill Instructor had a sit down heart to heart with the rest of us USMC recruits.

He explained the MP's responded because when Marines fight, it's usually a fight to the death. He said, when Marines fight, we expect to see ears ripped off, eyes poked out and crushed trachea's!

He explained, as Marines, you have to ask yourself before involving yourself in any fight. Is it worth killing the person over? If it's worth killing over, will I accept the consequences? If you can't answer yes to both those questions you better walk away and go about your business.

I'm sure it was all part of the routine "indoctrination" but it's something I took to heart and it has stayed with me ever since.

Now I have been in more than one fight over the years defending myself on the job since then, and while I never killed the person, I was fully prepared to take it that far if needed.
 
#25 ·
I usually agree with Doc Holliday, but he posted something I would have to disagree with, :gah: IMHO this would not be a place to use OC or pepper spray, as the other passengers on the bus suddenly become victims and many lawyers will make an easy pay check from your spray. That being said I am really enjoying this thread...

:wave:
 
#27 ·
The legal principle here is called Disparity of Force. If you are a senior citizen and your attacker is younger and stronger, then a disparity exists and you are justified in using more than bare hands. Two against one is always a deadly force situation, as far as I am concerned.
 
#28 ·
Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy, and Preclusion:

Ability--attacker has to have the ability to kill you (or someone else) or do you grievous bodily harm. This means they can either be 300lbs and ur 100lbs, they can have a brick, umbrella, knife, pencil, ect. They just must have to have the ability to kill or maim you.

Opportunity--the attacker must have the opportunity to harm you. If said attacker is behind a fence or 100 yards away yelling at you then he/she doesn't really have the opportunity to harm/kill you. That said...it only takes 1.5 seconds for an average human to cover 21 feet...add a baseball bat into the mix and now they are a threat at 25 feet. So, its acceptable to believe that a person ~21ft or less with a weapon now has ability and opportunity.

Jeopardy-- basically you have to know at that time that the attacker is going to kill you. A reasonable person must know conclude that he/she is going to be killed by this person.

Preclusion-- basically, only use force as a last resort. It's your responsibility as a gun owner to remove yourself from situations that would involve the use of your firearm. It's only when you can't do anything else to retreat/remove yourself from the situation that you can use your firearm.

When you meet all of those criteria you are in a situation where the use of lethal force is acceptable. Shoot to eliminate the threat.




*I'm not a lawyer*
 
#32 ·
Starting with the basics:

Any decision about when to draw is going to be a balance between a faster response time when things go south and being on the wrong end of a brandishing charge. Every situation is going to be different, but I think we can make some generalizations. For instance, you're going to have a lot more latitude to draw early in your own home than when you're out in public. At the opposite end of the spectrum, if you're out in a crowded public place, there's almost no opportunity to draw, short of an actual decision to use deadly force. The situations where the real debate happens are the ones in between: in your car during a road rage incident, walking down a dark street with a couple of suspicious characters walking towards you.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top